Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 210 (JK)

Rakesh Sharma v. L. G. Electronics India Ltd.

2010-04-21

B.L.Saraf, G.D.Sharma

body2010
Per Justice G.D. Sharma (Oral) 1. Through the medium of this appeal, order dated 11.04.2010 passed by the learned Divisional Forum Jammu (herein after to be referred to as the Forum) has been challenged solely on the plea of inadequate of quantum of compensation. The appeal is time bared by 20 days. Application is made for the condonation of delay. On the basis of merits, we find "sufficient cause" for condonation of delay. Accordingly, application is allowed and delay is condoned. The appeal is registered in the concerned Register. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 17.05.2000, the appellant purchased L.G Air Conditioner having compressor of 1.5 ton capacity from respondent no.2 who is authorized dealer of respondent no. l at a price of Rs. 27,000/-. The Air Conditioner had warranty of 12 months on all parts and 60 months warranty on the compressor from the date of purchase. The case of the appellant is that within a period of 5 to 6 months from the date of purchase, the Air Conditioner started giving trouble and its normal functioning was found disrupted. The appellant had been approaching respondent no.2 for getting the defects removed but all his efforts had gone hay wire. Once, his request in the service centre of L.G situated in Gandhi Nagar was accepted and a mechanic/engineer was deputed who made the Air Conditioner functional at that time but shortly thereafter it went out of gear. The Service Centre of L.G of Gandhi Nagar refused to affect any repair second time and respondent no.2 was approached who sent his engineer who finally replaced the compressor of the Air Conditioner and charged Rs. 1615/- against the terms and conditions of the warranty period. After some time the Air Conditioner again became non-functional and the appellant once again approached the Service Centre of OP situated in Gandhi Nagar. This time his request was accepted and engineer was sent, who opened the Air Conditioner and informed the complainant that the compressor in the Air Conditioner was of sub-standard quality against the specifications of L.G and also of the capacity of 1 tone against the capacity of 1.5 ton. The appellant approached respondent no.2, who straight-way refused to entertain his complaint. The appellant approached respondent no.2, who straight-way refused to entertain his complaint. The appellant was compelled to file the complaint in the Forum with a prayer to seek direction for the return of the cost price of Rs.27,000/-of the Air Conditioner and Rs. 1615/- which were illegally charged by respondent no.2 alongwith interest at the rate of 12% p.a. The compensation in the sum of Rs. 1 lac was claimed for suffering mental agony, physical torture and loss of time. The learned Forum allowed the complaint of the appellant and directed respondent no.2 to repay an amount of Rs. 16151- which he had charged on 08.09.2004 alongwith interest @ 6% p.a till realization. Direction was given to respondent no. I through its Branch Office/Service Centre at Jammu to carry the A.C to its work-shop for removing defects if any and return A.C in a good working condition at the residence of appellant and ensure that it functions properly. The direction had to be complied within 5 days otherwise the appellant was entitled to the refund of Rs. 27,000/- from respondent no. l. It was also stated that appellant had to permit the Branch Office/Service Centre at Jammu to inspect the Air Conditioner. Litigation charges in the sum of Rs. 1,000/- were granted. The order has been assailed inter alia on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal. The main grouse of the appellant is that, the learned Forum has failed to address itself to grant the ralief on the basis of carrying trade by a fraudulent manner. That inadequate relief has been granted in favour of the appellant who has suffered much because being a professional man working as a specialist in the discipline of ENT in Government service. 3. The appeal has been contested on behalf of respondent no.) and nobody has appeared on behalf of respondent no. 2. Mr. Rahul Pant advocate appearing for respondent no. l had submitted that the appellant had failed to co-operate for the inspection of L.G Air Conditioner by taking it to the Service Centre Gandhi Nagar which is a franchise of respondent no. 2. Mr. Rahul Pant advocate appearing for respondent no. l had submitted that the appellant had failed to co-operate for the inspection of L.G Air Conditioner by taking it to the Service Centre Gandhi Nagar which is a franchise of respondent no. l. That from the very beginning plea was taken in the written version filed before the learned Forum that Service Centre of L.G Electronics India Limited at Gandhi Nagar was not supposed to entertain the complaints of the appellant because he had purchased the product from the Sale Service Dealer (Respondent no.2) who is allowed extra margin of profit by Respondent no. l for providing service to a customer,. It was also pleaded that appellant had never approached respondent no. 1 regarding the non-functioning of the Air Conditioner otherwise immediate instruction would have been given to respondent no. 2 to remove the defects. 4. After hearing the counsel for the parties order was passed on 15.04.2010. Offer made by the counsel appearing for respondent no.1 was accepted to allow the examination of the Air Conditioner at the Authorized Service Centre. The counsel of respondent no. 1 has produced the report of the qualified service Engineer. Now the controversy has been narrowed down. It is proved beyond any shadow of doubt that respondent no.2 had charged a sum of Rs. 1615/- on 08.09.2004 within the warranty period and replaced the compressor by substandard quality of 1 ton capacity instead of 1.5 ton capacity. This is a case of carrying on unfair trade of a very grave nature and amounts to the commission of cognizable offences of theft and cheating. The appellant is a man of status in the society and belongs to the noble profession of doctors. An educated and civilized genuine consumer stands cheated and humiliated by unscrupulous trader whose aim and object of life seems to be to mint money by hook or crook. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, we allow the appeal and direct respondent no. l to replace the L.G Air Conditioner with a new one of the same quality within a period of 3 weeks, failing which the sale price of Rs. 27,000/- shall have to be returned alongwith interest @ 8% p.a from the date of purchase till final payment. Accordingly respondent no. l to replace the L.G Air Conditioner with a new one of the same quality within a period of 3 weeks, failing which the sale price of Rs. 27,000/- shall have to be returned alongwith interest @ 8% p.a from the date of purchase till final payment. Accordingly respondent no. 2 who is found to be carrying the trade in a fraudulent and unfair manner is directed to return the illegally charged amount of Rs. 1615/- alongwith interest @ 8% p.a from the date of purchase of the Air Conditioner till realization. In addition respondent no.2 shall pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) to the appellant for causing harassment, physical and mental torture and denying the facility to use the service of the sold Air Conditioner. He shall also bear the costs of litigation throughout in the sum of Rs, 5,000/-. The record of the Forum be returned and appeal be consigned to records.